Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 86 references

Multi-band optical variability of the blazar OP 313 in the outburst state during 2024-2025

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read OP 313, a flat-spectrum radio quasar in outburst from November 2024 to May 2025, showed a bluer-when-brighter optical trend on short-term timescales, contrary to the redder-when-brighter behavior typical of its class.

desk verdict Useful multi-band dataset and robust IDV detections, but the headline BWB claim needs phase-resolved CMD fits before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20223 v1 pith:5UCGFZEI submitted 2025-07-27 astro-ph.HE

P. U. Devanand , Alok C. Gupta , Karan Dogra , Shubham Kishore , Tushar Tripathi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarsOP313B21308+326opticalvariabilitybluer-when-brightercolor-magnitudediagramintradayflat-spectrumradioquasar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Monitoring the flat-spectrum radio quasar OP 313 on 25 nights from November 2024 to May 2025, while the source flared across more than two magnitudes in the B, V, R, and I bands, this paper finds that the source became bluer as it brightened on short-term timescales. The color-magnitude diagrams for all six color indices (B-V, B-R, B-I, V-R, V-I, R-I) show positive slopes and significant correlations, and the optical spectral index $\alpha_o$ falls as the R-band magnitude drops, meaning the spectrum hardens with increasing brightness. This matters because flat-spectrum radio quasars usually display the opposite, redder-when-brighter, behavior, while bluer-when-brighter is the hallmark of BL Lac objects. The authors connect the BWB behavior to the picture of OP 313 as a changing-look blazar, an intrinsic FSRQ whose non-thermal jet emission overwhelms the disk in high states. They also report intraday variability on five of ten R-band nights, a 34% duty cycle, and a 137.9-minute variability timescale that bounds the emission region size.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the color-magnitude diagram (CMD): each of six optical color indices is plotted against the magnitude of the reference band and fitted by a line $CI = m_2 \, m + c_2$, with a positive slope at $\ge 3\sigma$ and a significant positive correlation taken as the operational definition of bluer-when-brighter. To check spectral behavior, the paper builds optical SEDs for 30 nights from extinction-corrected BVRI fluxes, fits them with the power law $F_\nu \propto \nu^{-\alpha_o}$, and examines how $\alpha_o$ changes with R-band magnitude. Intraday variability is assessed with the power-enhanced F-test and the nested ANOVA test, both using field stars as references, and variability timescales are extracted from z-transformed discrete correlation functions with Monte Carlo significance levels.

What would settle it

Observe OP 313 with truly simultaneous multi-band photometry during an outburst and rebuild the color-magnitude diagrams; if the positive CMD slopes and the spectral-hardening correlation vanish or reverse, the BWB claim is an artifact of sequential band sampling. A shorter check is already embedded in the data: the paper's one quasi-simultaneous V/R night should reproduce the BWB sense on intraday timescales if the trend is intrinsic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that OP 313, historically classified as a flat-spectrum radio quasar, follows a bluer-when-brighter (BWB) trend on short-term variability timescales: as the source gets brighter, its optical color indices decrease and its power-law spectrum $F_\nu \propto \nu^{-\alpha_o}$ hardens. The evidence is the set of color-magnitude diagrams fitted with straight lines; all six color indices yield positive slopes ($m_2 \ge 3\sigma_{m_2}$) and moderate-to-strong Pearson correlations with magnitude, and $\alpha_o$ correlates with R-band magnitude with slope $0.249 \pm 0.040$ and $r_p = 0.758$. Over the whole campaign the brightness range was about 2.70, 2.35, 2.27, and 2.18 magnitudes in B, V, R, and I, and the weighted mean optical spectral index is quoted as $1.471 \pm 0.004$ in the abstract. This BWB result is presented as supporting the changing-look blazar scenario for the source, in which an intrinsic FSRQ appears as a BL Lac object during high flux states.

Load-bearing premise

The BWB result assumes the source did not change brightness between the sequential B, V, R, and I exposures that form each color index; if OP 313 varied significantly during a multi-band sequence, the measured colors and CMD slopes would be distorted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the BWB trend is real, OP 313's optical synchrotron component becomes harder and more energetic as it brightens, consistent with fresh injections of high-energy electrons rather than a stable disk simply diluting the jet emission.
  • If the 137.9-minute timescale is genuine, the emitting region is no larger than roughly $(1.93\text{--}3.35) \times 10^{15}$ cm for the Doppler factors quoted from earlier SED modeling of the source.
  • The measured duty cycle of about 34% (54.85% when the short April 3 night is excluded) means that OP 313 is frequently variable within a night during its active phase.
  • The spectral index increased over the campaign with a slope of $0.003 \pm 0.001$ per day, so the spectrum steepened as the outburst decayed; this is the time-domain counterpart of the BWB behavior.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the BVRI colors come from sequential exposures rather than simultaneous ones, the BWB conclusion would be put on firmer ground by a campaign with simultaneous or rapidly cycled multiband photometry; the paper's own quasi-simultaneous V/R run is the natural seed for such a test.
  • If the changing-look interpretation is right, one testable prediction is that the synchrotron peak frequency of OP 313 should shift upward in bright states and downward in faint states within a single outburst, not just between historical epochs.
  • The BWB/RWB dichotomy among FSRQs may be a continuum set by the jet-to-disk contrast ratio; OP 313 in outburst would then be the extreme case where the jet completely outshines the disk, while fainter FSRQ states should still show redder-when-brighter behavior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an extensive BVRI photometric campaign of the blazar OP 313 (B2 1308+326) from November 2024 to April 2025, using two ARIES telescopes and supplemented by ATel magnitudes. The authors identify intraday variability in five of ten R-band nights using the power-enhanced F-test and nested ANOVA, measure a total short-term amplitude of about 2.2-2.7 mag depending on band, derive a variability timescale from ACF analysis and convert it into an upper limit on the emission-region size using a literature Doppler factor, fit nightly optical SEDs with a power law, and report that the source is bluer when brighter (BWB) on short-term timescales, in contrast to the usual FSRQ behavior. The paper interprets the BWB trend as supporting the changing-look blazar scenario proposed in earlier work.

Significance. The dataset is valuable: it provides dense R-band monitoring over seven months, uses two well-established statistical tests for IDV with full reporting of F-values and p-values, and includes 10000-simulation ACF significance testing. The use of an independent Doppler factor from Pandey et al. (2024) in the emission-region size estimate is appropriate and avoids circularity. If the BWB result is correct, it is astrophysically interesting because OP 313 is an FSRQ and the behavior would support a changing-look scenario. However, the headline BWB claim is not yet secured: the color-magnitude analysis is vulnerable to degeneracy between a secular reddening trend and the V-shaped brightness evolution, and the outlier-removal step in the correlation analysis is not reproducible. These issues are fixable with additional analysis, so the paper merits major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3 and Table 4] The BWB conclusion rests on CMD slopes and CI-versus-magnitude correlations computed over the full campaign, yet Table 4 also shows that all six color indices increase significantly with MJD (rs = 0.420-0.578, ps ≤ 0.019), i.e., the source reddens over time. Because the R-band light curve is V-shaped (Fig. 1; §4.1.1), with the bright maximum near MJD 60714.9, a single linear fit to color versus magnitude can absorb the reddening-with-time trend and the two brightness phases into a spurious positive slope. The authors should fit the CMDs separately to the brightening branch (before MJD 60714.9) and the fading branch, or include MJD as a covariate, and report the phase-resolved slopes. Without this, the claimed BWB trend is not established.
  2. [§4.1.2 and §5, Eq. (14)] The variability timescale of 137.90 min used to derive the emission-region size is attributed in the text to the night of Apr 02, 2025, but Table 2 classifies Apr 02 as non-variable in R (power-enhanced F-test: Fenh = 0.15, p = 1.00; nested ANOVA: F = 1.65, p = 0.085), and Figure 2 shows the significant ACF features on the 2025 Feb 02 panel instead. The authors should correct this attribution and re-derive the size upper limit from a night that passes both IDV tests, or explicitly justify why a formally non-variable segment can still yield a variability timescale.
  3. [§4.3] The statement 'we removed the outliers, which are far from being the best fit' is not reproducible. No objective criterion is given for defining an outlier (e.g., a sigma-clipping threshold, the number of points removed, or whether the removal was iterative), and the reported Pearson correlations and slopes in Table 4 depend on this step. The authors should specify the outlier-removal procedure or report the results without removal so that the correlation coefficients and slopes can be verified.
  4. [§2.1 and §4.3] Each nightly color index is formed from B, V, R, and I exposures taken sequentially rather than simultaneously, as acknowledged in §2.1 ('On most nights, we tried to attain at least one frame of the source in B, V, R, and I bands'). If the source varied between the first and last exposures of a sequence, the color indices and therefore the CMD slopes could be systematically distorted. The paper should report the typical time interval between the first and last band exposures on each night and test the robustness of the BWB slopes using only quasi-simultaneous ATel points or by modeling the time offsets.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §4.2] The weighted-mean optical spectral index is given as 1.471 ± 0.004 in the abstract but as 1.467 ± 0.004 in §4.2; please reconcile the two values.
  2. [§2.1] There is a typo in the sentence about seeing: 'Telescope A has lower effective area compared to B, it generates nominally images with low FWHM sources, i.e., better seeing than A' should read 'better seeing than B'.
  3. [§4.1.2 and Figure 2] The text says the significant ACF dip is for 'Apr 02, 2025,' whereas the corresponding panel in Figure 2 is labeled 20250202; the date should be corrected consistently throughout the discussion.
  4. [Table 2] The notation '<< 0.001' for very small p-values is used only in some rows; for consistency, please replace it with a numerical upper limit (e.g., p < 10^-6) or define the notation prominently in the table note.
  5. [§3.4, Eq. (13)] The quantity Δt_i in Eq. (13) is not defined before first use; please define it explicitly as the observing duration and state that the redshift-corrected value is used.
  6. [Figure 1] The caption states that vertical offsets are applied but does not give their values; listing the offsets for each magnitude and color curve would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BWB trend is a directly measured correlation, not a fitted input disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The paper's central claim, that OP 313 shows a bluer-when-brighter (BWB) trend on short-term timescales, is a directly measured correlation between color indices and magnitudes (Table 4 and Fig. 4b) and between optical spectral index and R-band magnitude (Fig. 4a). These are descriptive fits to observed photometry, not predictions derived from the same parameters that define the claim. The BWB label is the standard empirical definition of a positive color-magnitude slope, so the interpretation does not smuggle the conclusion into the input. The emission-region size uses a Doppler factor taken from Pandey et al. 2024, an externally published value, and the agreement with Pandey et al. 2025 is used as corroboration rather than as the proof of the color trend. The non-simultaneity of the BVRI exposures and the possibility that a reddening-with-time trend combined with a V-shaped light curve distorts the CMD slope (Table 4 reports significantly positive CI-versus-MJD Spearman correlations) are legitimate data-analysis and interpretation risks, but they are correctness risks, not circularity: no equation or fitted parameter in the paper reduces to the target result by construction. The paper is an observational study whose main results are measured correlations, and it does not rely on a self-citation chain to force its conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claims rely on standard photometric assumptions (non-variable comparison stars, correct calibrations), on a literature Doppler factor, and on a somewhat insecure variability timescale. The only hand-tuned element is the post hoc outlier removal in the CMD analysis, which is the main weak point.

free parameters (2)
  • Outlier rejection threshold in CMD fits = not specified; 'outliers far from best fit' removed
    The CMD slopes and correlations are computed after removing points the authors judged to be outliers. The criterion is subjective and not quantified, and it directly affects the significance of the BWB trend. This is a hand-chosen parameter that the central claim depends on.
  • Cmd slope m2 for each color index = e.g., B-V vs V: 0.057 ± 0.012; B-I vs I: 0.178 ± 0.029
    These slopes are fitted to the color-magnitude data and are the quantitative basis for the BWB claim. They are measured values, not theoretical parameters, but they are fitted and the BWB conclusion follows from their signs and significances.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The comparison stars used for differential photometry are non-variable.
    Differential photometry assumes the standard stars A, B, C, and F do not vary. If any star varied, the blazar light curves and colors would be corrupted. The paper states the stars are in the field and have magnitudes close to the source, but does not test their constancy over the campaign (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption The source redshift z = 0.9980 and Doppler factor range δ = 15.61-26.97 from Pandey et al. 2024 are correct.
    These literature values are used to convert the 137.9 min timescale into an emission-region size upper limit (Section 5). If either value is wrong, the derived R upper limit scales linearly.
  • domain assumption The ACF dip at 137.9 min represents a genuine variability timescale.
    The emission-region size estimate uses this timescale. The paper itself notes the dip is 'probably a mimic of the time difference between extreme flux values,' so the physical interpretation rests on a fragile premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-band optical variability of the blazar OP 313 in the outburst state during 2024-2025." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5UCGFZEI

@misc{pith2026250720223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-band optical variability of the blazar OP 313 in the outburst state during 2024-2025},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5UCGFZEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20223}
}
abstract

We present the analysis results of flux and spectral variability of the blazar OP 313 across intra-night to short-term timescales using BVRI photometric data, gathered over 25 nights from Nov 2024 to May 2025, using two optical telescopes in ARIES, India. The source was in an outburst state during this period. We searched for intraday variations (IDV), using two powerful statistical tests: the Power Enhanced F-test and the Nested ANOVA test. The source displayed IDV in the R band for five of the ten nights, yielding a duty cycle of 34$\%$. During the entire monitoring of the source, it showed variations of over two mag in all B, V, R, and I data bands. We obtained a variability timescale for a variable light curve, giving us an upper limit for the size of the emission region. We generated optical SEDs of the blazar for these 25 nights, fitted a power law of form $(F_\nu \propto \nu^{-\alpha_{o}})$ and found the weighted mean spectral index to be 1.471$\pm$0.004. An analysis of the color-magnitude diagram shows that, contrary to the redder-when-brighter (RWB) trend typically observed in FSRQs, this source exhibits a bluer-when-brighter (BWB) trend on short-term variability (STV) timescales - a behavior more commonly associated with BL Lac object. We explore potential physical mechanisms responsible for the observed spectral variability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20223 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The lower plot shows short-term variability light curves of the source OP 313 from late November to late May. Data in the B, V, R, and I filters are plotted in blue, green, red, and dark magenta colors. We also plotted B-I, V-R, and B-V color diagrams in the upper plot in sky blue, dark orange, and brown colors. Filled circles, open circles, and asterisks have represented DFOT, ST, and ATel data. Vertical offsets ha… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Left) : Variable IDV light curves of OP 313 in the R band. Data from ST is shown with open circle symbols, while data from DFOT is shown with filled circles. (Right) : ACF plots for variable LCs. The curves are obtained using the pyZDCF(I. Jankov et al. 2022) python module, setting a minimal number of data points per bin to 11 and the number of MC simulations to 10000. 1 σ, 2 σ, and 3σ confidence levels are marked … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SED plots for OP 313 for the entire duration of observation. B, V, R, and I data points are represented by blue, green, red, and dark magenta colors, respectively, with DFOT, ST, and ATel data shown as filled circles, open circles, and asterisks. MJD corresponding to each SED and given offsets for better pictorial representation are displayed for each SED. source from November 2024 to May 2025 and have re￾ported the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) and (b) panels show two key results from the spectral and color analysis on STV timescales. The red line indicates the best-fit straight line to each plot. ST, DFOT, and ATel data are represented by yellow filled circles, dark violet open circles, and dark cyan ast…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/30

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/30 2010

  2. [2]

    Agarwal, A., & Gupta, A. C. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv625

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv625 2015

  3. [3]

    C., Bachev, R., et al

    Agarwal, A., Gupta, A. C., Bachev, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2345

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2345 2016

  4. [4]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1302.1508, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.1508 Multi-band optical variability of OP 313 17

    Alexander, T. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1302.1508, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.1508 Multi-band optical variability of OP 313 17

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.1508 2013

  5. [5]

    Angel, J. R. P., & Stockman, H. S. 1980, ARA&A, 18, 321, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.18.090180.001541

    arXiv 1980

  6. [6]

    C., et al

    Bachev, R., Tripathi, T., Gupta, A. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3018, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1063

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1063 2023

  7. [7]

    S., Castelli, F., & Plez, B

    Bessell, M. S., Castelli, F., & Plez, B. 1998, A&A, 333, 231

    1998

  8. [8]

    D., & Rees, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1978, PhyS, 17, 265, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/17/3/020 B¨ ottcher, M. 2007, Ap&SS, 309, 95, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9404-0 B¨ ottcher, M., Fultz, K., Aller, H. D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 174, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/174

    doi:10.1088/0031-8949/17/3/020 1978

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    J., Steffen, W., et al

    Britzen, S., Qian, S. J., Steffen, W., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629999

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    K., & Wiita, P

    Chakrabarti, S. K., & Wiita, P. J. 1993, ApJ, 411, 602, doi: 10.1086/172862 de Diego, J. A. 2010, AJ, 139, 1269, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/1269 de Diego, J. A. 2014, AJ, 148, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/93 de Diego, J. A., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., Ram ´ ırez, A., & Ben ´ ıt...

    1993 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Kurtanidze, S

    Dhiman, V., Gupta, A. C., Kurtanidze, S. O., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3709

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Bachev, R., et al

    Dhiman, V., Gupta, A. C., Bachev, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3232

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Raiteri, C

    Dogra, K., Gupta, A. C., Raiteri, C. M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 276, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8e3d

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    A., & Krolik, J

    Edelson, R. A., & Krolik, J. H. 1988, ApJ, 333, 646, doi: 10.1086/166773

    1988 doi

  7. [15]

    M., & Papadakis, I

    Emmanoulopoulos, D., McHardy, I. M., & Papadakis, I. E. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt764

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    1998, PASP, 110, 105, doi: 10.1086/316127

    Fiorucci, M., Tosti, G., & Rizzi, N. 1998, PASP, 110, 105, doi: 10.1086/316127

    1998 doi

  9. [18]

    1996, AJ, 112, 1709, doi: 10.1086/118137

    Foster, G. 1996, AJ, 112, 1709, doi: 10.1086/118137

    1996 doi

  10. [19]

    Wardle, J. F. C. 1993, ApJ, 410, 39, doi: 10.1086/172722

    1993 doi

  11. [20]

    C., & Wiita, P

    Gaur, H., Gupta, A. C., & Wiita, P. J. 2012a, AJ, 143, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/1/23

    doi

  12. [22]

    C., Bachev, R., et al

    Gaur, H., Gupta, A. C., Bachev, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 4263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1556

    2015 doi

  13. [23]

    M., et al

    Ghisellini, G., Villata, M., Raiteri, C. M., et al. 1997, A&A, 327, 61, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9706254

    1997 doi arXiv

  14. [24]

    Gopal-Krishna, Sagar, R., & Wiita, P. J. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.4.963 Gopal-Krishna, & Wiita, P. J. 1992, A&A, 259, 109

    1993 doi

  15. [25]

    F., Lee, C

    Gu, M. F., Lee, C. U., Pak, S., Yim, H. S., & Fletcher, A. B. 2006, A&A, 450, 39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054271

    2006 doi

  16. [26]

    C., Banerjee, D

    Gupta, A. C., Banerjee, D. P. K., Ashok, N. M., & Joshi, U. C. 2004, A&A, 422, 505, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040306

    2004 doi

  17. [27]

    C., Agarwal, A., Bhagwan, J., et al

    Gupta, A. C., Agarwal, A., Bhagwan, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw377

    2016 doi

  18. [28]

    C., Mangalam, A., Wiita, P

    Gupta, A. C., Mangalam, A., Wiita, P. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2072

    2017 doi

  19. [29]

    C., Kushwaha, P., Valtonen, M

    Gupta, A. C., Kushwaha, P., Valtonen, M. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfd2e

    2023 doi

  20. [30]

    Heidt, J., & Wagner, S. J. 1996, A&A, 305, 42, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9506032 H.E.S.S. Collaboration, Abramowski, A., Aharonian, F., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424142

    1996 doi arXiv

  21. [31]

    C., & Wild, V

    Hewett, P. C., & Wild, V. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2302, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16648.x

    2010

  22. [32]

    M., Zhao, G., Guo, H

    Hu, S. M., Zhao, G., Guo, H. Y., Zhang, X., & Zheng, Y. G. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1243, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10721.x

    2006

  23. [33]

    R., & Bregman, J

    Hufnagel, B. R., & Bregman, J. N. 1992, ApJ, 386, 473, doi: 10.1086/171033

    1992 doi

  24. [34]

    C., Urry, C

    Isler, J. C., Urry, C. M., Coppi, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa79fc

    2017 doi

  25. [35]

    2022,, v1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7253034

    Nikutta, R. 2022,, v1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7253034

    2022 doi

  26. [36]

    C., Bangia, T., Jaiswar, M

    Joshi, Y. C., Bangia, T., Jaiswar, M. K., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 11, 2240004, doi: 10.1142/S2251171722400049

    2022 doi

  27. [37]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca801

    Kalita, N., Yuan, Y., Gu, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca801

    2023 doi

  28. [38]

    G., Rieger, F

    Kirk, J. G., Rieger, F. M., & Mastichiadis, A. 1998, A&A, 333, 452, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801265

    1998 doi arXiv

  29. [39]

    C., & Wiita, P

    Kishore, S., Gupta, A. C., & Wiita, P. J. 2023, ApJ, 943, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca809

    2023 doi

  30. [40]

    Krishnan, V., & Wiita, P. J. 1990, MNRAS, 246, 597

    1990

  31. [41]

    K., Paliya, V

    Kshama, S. K., Paliya, V. S., & Stalin, C. S. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3317

    2017 doi

  32. [42]

    1992, A&A, 254, 29

    Lesch, H., & Pohl, M. 1992, A&A, 254, 29

    1992

  33. [43]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343 MAGIC Collaboration, Abe, H., Abe, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae649 18 Devanand et al

    1976 doi

  34. [44]

    V., & Wiita, P

    Mangalam, A. V., & Wiita, P. J. 1993, ApJ, 406, 420, doi: 10.1086/172453

    1993 doi

  35. [45]

    Smith, P. S. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/281.2.425

    1996 doi

  36. [46]

    P., & Gear, W

    Marscher, A. P., & Gear, W. K. 1985, ApJ, 298, 114, doi: 10.1086/163592

    1985 doi

  37. [47]

    1998, MNRAS, 299, 47, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01696.x

    Massaro, E., Nesci, R., Maesano, M., Montagni, F., & D’Alessio, F. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 47, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01696.x

    1998

  38. [48]

    Mastichiadis, A., & Kirk, J. G. 2002, PASA, 19, 138, doi: 10.1071/AS01108

    2002 doi

  39. [49]

    R., Carini, M

    Miller, H. R., Carini, M. T., & Goodrich, B. D. 1989, Nature, 337, 627, doi: 10.1038/337627a0 M¨ ucke, A., Protheroe, R. J., Engel, R., Rachen, J. P., &

    1989 doi

  40. [50]

    2003, Astroparticle Physics, 18, 593, doi: 10.1016/S0927-6505(02)00185-8

    Stanev, T. 2003, Astroparticle Physics, 18, 593, doi: 10.1016/S0927-6505(02)00185-8

    2003 doi

  41. [51]

    P., Gaur, H., Gupta, A

    Noel, A. P., Gaur, H., Gupta, A. C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7799

    2022 doi

  42. [52]

    A., et al

    Otero-Santos, J., Bonnoli, G., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16979, 1

    2025

  43. [53]

    C., Damljanovic, G., et al

    Pandey, A., Gupta, A. C., Damljanovic, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1598

    2020 doi

  44. [54]

    C., & Wiita, P

    Pandey, A., Gupta, A. C., & Wiita, P. J. 2017, ApJ, 841, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa705e

    2017 doi

  45. [55]

    C., Wiita, P

    Pandey, A., Gupta, A. C., Wiita, P. J., & Tiwari, S. N. 2019, ApJ, 871, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf974

    2019 doi

  46. [56]

    J., et al

    Pandey, A., Kushwaha, P., Wiita, P. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347719

    2024 doi

  47. [57]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b7c

    Pandey, A., Hu, C., Wang, J.-M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b7c

    2025 doi

  48. [58]

    A., et al

    Polednikova, J., Ederoclite, A., de Diego, J. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3950, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1252

    2016 doi

  49. [59]

    H., & Fu, J

    Poon, H., Fan, J. H., & Fu, J. N. 2009, ApJS, 185, 511, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/185/2/511

    2009 doi

  50. [60]

    M., Villata, M., Acosta-Pulido, J

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 552, 374, doi: 10.1038/nature24623

    2017 doi

  51. [61]

    M., Villata, M., Carnerero, M

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Carnerero, M. I., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3064

    2023 doi

  52. [62]

    C., Joshi, U

    Rani, B., Gupta, A. C., Joshi, U. C., Ganesh, S., & Wiita, P. J. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2157, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18288.x

    2011

  53. [63]

    Rees, M. J. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 471, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002351

    1984

  54. [64]

    E., Cellone, S

    Romero, G. E., Cellone, S. A., & Combi, J. A. 1999, A&AS, 135, 477, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999184

    1999 doi

  55. [65]

    Sagar, R., Gopal-Krishna, & Wiita, P. J. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 1267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/281.4.1267

    1996 doi

  56. [66]

    Shishkina, E. V. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17046, 1

    2025

  57. [67]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  58. [68]

    Singal, A. K. 2016, ApJ, 827, 66, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/66

    2016 doi

  59. [69]

    Schmidt, G. D. 1985, AJ, 90, 1184, doi: 10.1086/113824

    1985 doi

  60. [70]

    2001, MNRAS, 325, 1559, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04557.x

    Spada, M., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D., & Celotti, A. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1559, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04557.x

    2001

  61. [71]

    S., Gopal-Krishna, Sagar, R., & Wiita, P

    Stalin, C. S., Gopal-Krishna, Sagar, R., & Wiita, P. J. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 175, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07631.x

    2004

  62. [72]

    Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191, doi: 10.1086/131977

    1987 doi

  63. [73]

    Stetson, P. B. 1992, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 25, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems I, ed. D. M. Worrall, C. Biemesderfer, & J. Barnes, 297

    1992

  64. [74]

    1991, ApJ, 374, 431, doi: 10.1086/170133

    Kuehr, H. 1991, ApJ, 374, 431, doi: 10.1086/170133

    1991 doi

  65. [75]

    T., Morris, S

    Stocke, J. T., Morris, S. L., Gioia, I. M., et al. 1991, ApJS, 76, 813, doi: 10.1086/191582

    1991 doi

  66. [76]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733, doi: 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  67. [77]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  68. [78]

    C., Takey, A., et al

    Tripathi, T., Gupta, A. C., Takey, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3574

    2024 doi

  69. [79]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630

    1995 doi

  70. [80]

    Villata, M., & Raiteri, C. M. 1999, A&A, 347, 30

    1999

  71. [81]

    M., Balonek, T

    Villata, M., Raiteri, C. M., Balonek, T. J., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 817, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064817

    2006 doi

  72. [82]

    V., Spiridonova, O

    Vlasyuk, V. V., Spiridonova, O. I., & Moskvitin, A. S. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16963, 1

    2024

  73. [84]

    J., & Witzel, A

    Wagner, S. J., & Witzel, A. 1995b, ARA&A, 33, 163, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001115

  74. [85]

    2000, A&A, 364, 43, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0009202

    Watson, D., Smith, N., Hanlon, L., et al. 2000, A&A, 364, 43, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0009202

    2000 doi arXiv

  75. [86]

    2015, A&A, 573, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423967

    Wierzcholska, A., Ostrowski, M., Stawarz, L., Wagner, S., & Hauser, M. 2015, A&A, 573, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423967

    2015 doi

  76. [87]

    J., Mangalam, A

    Wiita, P. J., Mangalam, A. V., & Chakrabarti, S. K. 1992, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 254, Testing the AGN paradigm, ed. S. S. Holt, S. G. Neff, & C. M. Urry (AIP), 251–254, doi: 10.1063/1.42190

    1992 doi

  77. [88]

    J., & Wills, D

    Wills, B. J., & Wills, D. 1979, ApJS, 41, 689, doi: 10.1086/190638

    1979 doi

  78. [89]

    Yadav, R. K. S., Jaiswal, A., Dattatrey, A. K., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 11, 2240006, doi: 10.1142/S2251171722400062

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.